The
judgment on appeal is the grant of a defense motion for
summary judgment in two consolidated cases. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.

Plaintiff/appellant,
Peter Hoffman, as successor in interest to Pool Boy the
Movie, L.L.C. (Pool Boy) and Autopsy, L.L.C. (Autopsy), filed
two separate lawsuits against John Theriot, CPA (Theriot) and
Malcolm M. Dienes, L.L.C. (MMD) for negligence and
professional malpractice. Because the two actions derive from
the same set of facts and assert the same claims against the
same defendants, the matters were consolidated in the trial
court by mutual consent of the parties. Upon completion of
discovery, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
that was granted by the trial court. It is that judgment that
is before this Court on appeal.

FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Both
Pool Boy and Autopsy are limited liability companies set up
as private, entrepreneurial motion picture production
companies for the purpose of filming movies and taking
advantage of the state sponsored tax credit program set forth
in La. R.S. 47: 6007 et seq. Mr. Hoffman is the
legal successor to both Pool Boy and Autopsy.

On May
25, 2007, by two separate documents, Hoffman engaged MMD, a
Louisiana certified public accounting limited liability
company, to perform audit reports of the production
expenditures of both Pool Boy and Autopsy as required by
Louisiana law. John Theriot is a certified public accountant
and the managing partner of MMD.

The
audits are expressions of a professional opinion about
whether the cost report of production expenditures is fairly
presented, and is in conformity with the practices prescribed
by the Louisiana Department of Economic Development. The
audits are conducted in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards and are used by the State to determine
qualification for the film tax credits.

In
accordance with those agreements, MMD issued an independent
auditor's report on each of the two movies. The Autopsy
audit was issued on January 25, 2008 and the Pool Boy audit
was issued on April 18, 2008. These audits were subsequently
submitted to the State.

On
February 3, 2012, MMD notified Pool Boy and Autopsy by
correspondence to Mr. Hoffman that it discovered that certain
transactions with related parties were not disclosed in the
cost report used as a basis for the audit. The correspondence
informed both companies that the audit could no longer be
relied upon and that professional standards required
notification of this fact to users of the audit, including
the State. MMD requested that Mr. Hoffman notify the
Louisiana Department of Economic Development and/or the
Office of Entertainment Industry Development that the cost
report and accompanying audit report could no longer be
relied upon.

Mr.
Hoffman responded by sending a correspondence demanding that
MMD disclose the specifics of the transaction with related
parties to which it was referring. MMD sent written notice to
Mr. Hoffman listing the entities it perceived as related
parties not disclosed in the information provided by Pool Boy
and Autopsy. MMD also responded to what it considered an
implied threat of litigation in the correspondence from Pool
Boy and Autopsy by stating that it could no longer be
independent and would be unable to perform any further audit
procedures, including the re-issuance of audits. MMD also
reasserted its request that Pool Boy and Autopsy notify known
users that the cost reports and audit reports could no longer
be used or relied upon.

When
Mr. Hoffman failed to notify the appropriate Louisiana
departments that the audits could no longer be relied upon,
MMD recalled the audits. On February 28, 2012, MMD issued
audit recall letters to the Louisiana Department of Economic
Development and the Office of Entertainment Industry
Development. Upon receipt of the recall letters, the State
sent written demand to Pool Boy and Autopsy for replacement
audits performed by a certified public accountant within
fourteen days. The letter warned that unsupported movie tax
credits would be disallowed. Ultimately, the tax credits were
significantly reduced.

On
September 28, 2012, Mr. Hoffman filed a complaint against MMD
and John Theriot with the Society of Louisiana Certified
Public Accountants (the Society) pursuant to La. R.S. 37:102.
In that complaint Mr. Hoffman alleges MMD and John Theriot
acted negligently in preparing the audits and in issuing
letters of withdrawal of the audits to the State of
Louisiana.

MMD and
Mr. Theriot filed an exception of peremption seeking
dismissal of the claims related to the audits pursuant to the
three-year peremptive period in La. R.S. 9:5604. The trial
court denied that exception. MMD and Theriot filed an
application for supervisory writs in this Court seeking
review of that ruling. Upon review, this Court held that any
claims asserted that related to the preparation of the audits
were perempted by the three-year peremption ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.